Hilt, TobiasSein, KatiMällo, TanelWillemson, JanVolkamer, MelanieVolkamer, MelanieDuenas-Cid, DavidRønne, Peter B.Ryan, Peter Y ABudurushi, JurlindKulyk, OksanaRodriguez Pérez, AdriàSpycher-Krivonosova, IuliiaKirsten, MichaelDebant, AlexandreGoodman, Nicole2024-12-132024-12-132023978-3-88579-741-81617-5468https://dl.gi.de/handle/20.500.12116/45433The internet voting protocol deployed at Estonian political elections was enhanced by cast-as-intended vote verifyability mechanism in 2013 to reveal manipulations of the vote casting device by using a second device (most likely a mobile device as it needs to be euqipped with a camera). This paper studies voters' perception and comprehension of this mobile-device-based cast-as-intended verifiability mechanism. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 eligible voters who have cast an electronic vote at least once since the availability of this mechanism. While most participants were in favor of having the option to verify available, most were not aware of the main purpose to verify. Instead, they, for instance, thought it was designed to check that they had not made a mistake while selecting a candidate or to verify one's vote was tallied as intended. Thus, our findings highlight the need for improved communication on cast-as-intended verifiability in order to enable informed decisions whether to verify or not.enCast-as-intended verifiabilityOnline votingVoter perceptioncomprehensionInterviews10.18420/e-vote-id2023_11